"(T)he formularies of classical Anglicanism did a better job of retaining the wheat of the orthodox catholicism of the ancient Church while jettisoning the chaff of innovative medieval accretion than did any other segment of the Reformation. This is why Anglicanism can, perhaps uniquely, lay equal claim to the appellations Protestant and Catholic and affirm both without any sense of inconsistency or incoherence. Indeed, strictly speaking, in proper understanding of each term, to truly be one, you must be both." - "Wimsey" aka "Death Bredon"

Layman's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles, Fr. Robert Hart, Fr. Luke Wells and Bishop Peter Robinson

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

Fr. Hart Essays on Classic Anglicanism

Fr. Jonathan: Checklist for Finding a Classically Anglican Parish

Branch Theory or Branch Fact?:  Catholic Ecumenism and the Elephant in the Room

On the Catholicity of Anglicanism

Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation

The Caroline Divines

The Oxford Movement

What Was the Oxford Movement?


"What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?" - Tertullian

The Pastorate as the Proper Venue for the Church's Theology

CPT Blogs


Peter Berger: The Vernacularist Illusion

Shawn Tribe: On the Use of a Hieratic Liturgical English

Why Use Archaic Language?

An Appeal for Cranmer's Prayers


1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

A Living Text

Alastair's Adversaria

American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council Videos on the 39 Articles


Anglican Bible and Book Society

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Church in North America

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Mission in the Americas

Anglican Mom

An Anglican Priest

Anglican Pastor

Anglican Radio

Anglican Rose

Anglicanly Speaking

A BCP Anglican

The Book of Common Prayer (Blog of Photos)

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Catholic Anglican

The Church Calendar

Church Society

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

Colorado Anglican Society

The Conciliar Anglican

The Conciliar Anglican's YouTube Channel

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

The Continuum

The Curate's Corner

Drew's Views

The Evangelical Ascetic

Forward in Christ Magazine

Forward in Faith North America

Francis J. Hall's Theological Outlines

Free Range Anglican

The Hackney Hub

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

New Goliards

New Scriptorium (Anglican Articles and Books Online)

O cuniculi! Ubi lexicon Latinum posui?

The Old High Churchman


Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury


Reformed Catholicism

Reformed Episcopal Church

The Ridley Institute

River Thames Beach Party

The Secker Society

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

Stand Firm


The Theologian

The World's Ruined


To All The World

Trinity House Blog

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online



Bad Vestments

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire


Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People


Black-Robed Regiment

Cardinal Charles Chaput Reviews "For Greater Glory" (Cristero War)

Cristero War

Benedict Option

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?



Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

Bernard of Clairvaux and the Knights Templar

Gates of Nineveh

Islamophobes (We're in good company)

Jihad Watch

Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Restore Nineveh Now - Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI)


The Muslim Issue


Abbeville Institute Blog

Art of the Rifle

The Art of Manliness

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Church For Men

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, (Leon Podles' online book)

Craft Beer


First Things

Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility

Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

Mere Comments

Tales of Chivalry

The Midland Agrarian

Tim Holcombe: Anti-State; Pro-Kingdom

Midwest Conservative Journal

Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)

The Pipe Smoker

The Salisbury Review

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)


What's Wrong With The World: Dispatches From The 10th Crusade


A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son  (Yes, this is about women's ordination.)

Essays on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood from the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth

Father is Head at the Table: Male Eucharistic Headship and Primary Spiritual Leadership, Ray Sutton

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters, J.I. Packer

Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes, Peter J. Leithart

Priestesses in Plano, Robert Hart

Priestesses in the Church?, C.S. Lewis

Reasons for Questioning Women’s Ordination in the Light of Scripture, Rodney Whitacre

Streams of the River: Articles Outlining the Arguments Against the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood

William Witt's Articles on Women's Ordination (Old Jamestown Church archive)

Women Priests?, Eric Mascall

Powered by Squarespace
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.







                                                      Photo courtesy of Smash the Iron Cage


ISIS, 9/11 and the "Calvinist God"

My good friend and OJC reader Peter from San Diego comments at this old article about Calvinism

The Calvinist "Good News" is only good news for the divine lottery winners. Unconditional election is contrary to the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. But if the Calvinists are correct, then no one should worry about anything; everything, including my post, has been preordained, just as 911 and ISIS were ordained by the Calvinist God.

I will often post noteworthy comments to old articles in new blog entries, but in light of my recent de-emphasizing of Anglicanism's Protestant legacy, I welcome the opportunity to reiterate what I believe about the Western Catholic view of election and divine predestination.  So, Peter, thanks for the comment.

I'm still a biblical predestinarian, and so I reject the notion that unconditional election is "contrary to the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation."  For one of the most scholarly exegetical treatments of predestination and unconditional election, my readers should purchase, read, mark and imwardly digest John Piper's magisterial The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.  Piper's detailed exegetical work delves deeply into the Old Testament basis of Paul's teaching regarding unconditional election.  However, as the title indicates, the argument is confined to the explication of only one key biblical text that deals with these issues.  As anyone familiar with the "Calvinist-Arminian" debate knows, there are many texts both in the Old Testament and the New which bear upon God's sovereignty both in the redemption of man and in the ordering of the events of world history.

Peter is clearly troubled about the "Calvinist" interpretation of those texts, as evidenced by the conclusion he draws about 9/11, ISIS and the post that came about as a result of his own volition.  There are a number of things to be said in response.

First, as I've explained in several previous online discussions in which Peter was involved, the kind of predestinarianism we observe in the Bible is a "compatibilist" one, meaning one that sees both human volition and divine predestinarianism as "compatible."  I typically trot out the account of the shipwreck at Malta as a clear example of what I mean.  In Acts 27: 22 ff., Paul tells the terrified sailors and passengers:

But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23 Last night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood beside me 24 and said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.’ 25 So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. 26 Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island.”

In other words, God had divinely ordained that all would survive the storm, though the ship itself would be destroyed.  However, a few verses later we observe some men wishing to save themselves via the lifeboat, which prompts Paul to warn the centurion, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.”  This is a clear nod to the reality of human volition.  Volition, but not blind contingency, for the salvation of the crew and passengers "will happen just as he told me."

Philosophers have attempted to work out various solutions to the nagging problems of compatibilist determinism.  Norman Swartz is one such philosopher who employs modal logic.  And I am sure his work has been subjected to the scrutiny of his peers.  I am no philosopher, however.  My theological education focused more on hermeneutics, exegesis and theology, and those tools point me in the direction of compatibilist determinism aka "biblical predestination".

The second observation I have about Peter's argument is that it attempts to defeat biblical predestinarianism through applying a reductio ad absurdum that neither accounts for all the ontological intricacies through which divine predestination and human volition are in fact reconciled, nor for Anglican theologian J.B. Mozley's point about all this, on which I've written before.  Catholic Augustine scholar Gerald Bonner summarized Mozley's point (bolded emphases mine):

In a study of Augustinian predestination first published in 1855, J.B Mozley, brother-in-law of John Henry Newman and later Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Regius Professor of Divinity, theologically orthodox but fair-minded and aware of the limitations of the human intellect, noted the ideas of Divine Power and human free will, while sufficiently clear for the purposes of practical religion, are, in this world, truths from which we cannot derive definite and absolute systems. "All that we build upon either of them must partake of the imperfect nature of the premise which supports it, and be held under a reserve of consistency with a counter conclusion from the opposite truth." The Pelagian and Augustinian systems both arise upon partial and exclusive bases.


Mozley held that while both systems were at fault, the Augustinian offends in carrying certain religious ideas to an excess, whereas the Pelagian offends against the first principles of religion: "Pelagianism . . . offends against the first principles of piety, and opposes the great religious instincts and ideas of mankind. It. . . tampers with the sense of sin. . . . (Augustine's) doctrine of the Fall, the doctrine of Grace, and the doctrine of the Atonement are grounded in the instincts of mankind." (Freedom and Necessity: St. Augustine's Teaching on Divine Power and Human Freedom)

In other words, if we're going to err, we need to err in the direction of Augustine's predestinarianism.  Indeed, a number of Anglican theologians have decried the Pelagian tendency of the English people, and have noted how Pelagianism is inherently destructive of the faith, which leads to my third observation about Peter's argument:

If we push his logic, we arguably end up not only in Pelagianism, but in Open Theism.  I'm pretty sure that Peter does not believe in the "Pelagian God" or the "Open Theism God", but taken at face value his comments imply that God is not sovereign either in the affaris of human history or in human salvation.  Forget about the decretal theology of Augustine, his school in the Catholic West, and the Protestant Reformation, and think about things like 9/11 and ISIS only in light of the orthodox (and Orthodox) belief that God in his perfect omniscience has perfect knowledge of the future.  If, before the foundation of the world, God perfectly foreknew that 9/11 and ISIS would happen and then he created a world that would become the historical matrix of those things, then 9/11 and ISIS WOULD happen, because God cannot be wrong about what he foreknows.  That is to say, they would occur on the world scene with just as much necessity as they would have if they were actively predestined.  But then we look at Holy Scripture and see that divine foreknowledge is simply the flip side, theologically, of predestination.

Lastly, in response to Peter's complaint that the "good news" according to the Pauline-Augustinian theology is only that to those who are "divine lottery winners", it needs to be stressed that Pauline-Augustinian predestinarians don't believe in a "divine lottery", but a divine decree.   I get what Peter is saying here, but chance really has noting to do with it, either on God's end or man's.  We have to answer the question of why one person believes and why another doesn't.  I believe the Bible answers that question, and that St. Augustine got it right on that answer, which accounts for the fact that the Catholic West, to one degree or another, is predestinarian, anti-Pelagian, anti-Semipelagian, and anti-Open Theism.  The Catholic East is officially opposed to at least three of those things, but I have seen Orthodox thinkers drift dangerously close to, if not into, Open Theism.  That is the danger of Peter's logic, and many an Anglican anti-Calvinist theologian has recognized that danger.  Some Arminian Evangelicals have already swallowed Open Theism, hook, line and sinker.  Some Orthodox theologians are tempted.  Western Catholics need to stay grounded in the theology that led to the condemnations of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism, even if they can't bring themselves to believe in the doctrine of unconditional election, as Mozley himself could not.  Mozley nevertheless stood that Augustine's theology bore a relation to the Catholic Faith that Pelagianism never could. 


Why Anglicans Don't Need to Become Orthodox

"If an Anglican (or anyone) is attracted to Eastern Orthodox spirituality, by all means study and learn from their theologies and ascetical practices, etc. The only hesitation I have -- and this applies to Anglicans -- is that sometimes that seems to substitute for, rather than complement, a prior and deeper study of Anglican theologies, particularly those rooted in, and arising from, 11th to the 15th century origin (Anselm through Kempe). The more we Anglicans immerse into and rediscover the theological sensibilities that informed and issued in the Prayer Book ("behind the text"), the more our exchange with Orthodoxy is a two-way street, mutual and cooperative, all within the one Body of Christ. And all of this applies to Roman Catholicism and all other holy traditions in the Church, as well.

Anglicans, the serious ones, already study the Caroline Divines, and the rest. What is not studied in any coherent way -- that is to say, consonant with the subsequent emergence of the BCP and its spirituality and ascetical characteristics -- are the 14th and 15th centuries of English Christianity; of course Anselm is studied closely, but how often as the spiritual ancestor of Jeremy Taylor?

But is not this era 'Western/Roman'? Such a characterization is not misguided, but only too broad. Sure, Anselm, Julian, and the rest belong to the whole Church, but so do Hooker, Andrewes, and Taylor. When the common spiritual attributes of the 'English mystics' and the Carolines are seen in the proper light (best articulated by Martin Thornton in English Spirituality), Anglicanism itself is beheld as the rich Catholic tradition many (including me) recognize it implicitly to be. And yes, it is about balance -- the more affective emphases of 'Anselm through Kempe' nicely complement the more speculative emphases of "Hooker through Law." -- Matthew Dallman

Anglican Theologian Writes in Defense of the Just War Doctrine

In Defense of War.

From the reviews at Amazon:

Pacifism is popular. Many hold that war is unnecessary, since peaceful means of resolving conflict are always available, if only we had the will to look for them. Or they believe that war is wicked, essentially involving hatred of the enemy and carelessness of human life. Or they posit the absolute right of innocent individuals not to be deliberately killed, making it impossible to justify war in practice.

Peace, however, is not simple. Peace for some can leave others at peace to perpetrate mass atrocity. What was peace for the West in 1994 was not peace for the Tutsis of Rwanda. Therefore, against the virus of wishful thinking, anti-military caricature, and the domination of moral deliberation by rights-talk In Defence of War asserts that belligerency can be morally justified, even though tragic and morally flawed.

Recovering the Christian tradition of reflection running from Augustine to Grotius, this book affirms aggressive war in punishment of grave injustice. Morally realistic in adhering to universal moral principles, it recognises that morality can trump legality, justifying military intervention even in transgression of positive international law-as in the case of Kosovo. Less cynical and more empirically realistic about human nature than Hobbes, it holds that nations desire to be morally virtuous and right, and not only to be safe and fat. And aspiring to practical realism, it argues that love and the doctrine of double effect can survive combat; and that the constraints of proportionality, while real, are nevertheless sufficiently permissive to encompass Britain's belligerency in 1914-18. Finally, in a painstaking analysis of the Iraq invasion of 2003, In Defence of War culminates in an account of how the various criteria of just war should be thought together. It also concludes that, all things considered, the invasion was justified. . . .

Nigel Biggar is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, and Director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, at the University of Oxford, where he is also a Canon of Christ Church Cathedral. Before taking up his current post in 2007, he held chairs in Theology at the University of Leeds and at Trinity College Dublin. Among his published works are: Behaving in Public: How to Do Christian Ethics (2011), (co-ed.) Religious Voices in Public Places (2009), Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia (2004); and (ed.) Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict (2001, 2003). He sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Military Ethics and has lectured at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.


The Curate's Corner: What Do You Mean By Anglo-Catholic?


New To The Blogroll


Soldier Saints and Holy Warriors: Warfare and Sanctity in Anglo-Saxon England


The Archbishop of Canterbury is Clueless. (Who Knew?)

Who knew?  We'd say he's clueless about a great many things.  But he is vexed, very vexed, about an English movie chain that won't show a CofE advertizement featuring people saying the Lord's Prayer.  Does he not understand how apostsy in Anglican ranks has helped to fuel this?

An Anglican priest I know comments, and shows that the battle lines between Christian culture and secularist culture are now clearly drawn:

I understand the point that +Welby is making, but I think that he does the Christian faith no service by presenting it as inoffensive. As for carol services and church services on Christmas Day? Consider this. In Luke's narrative of the nativity of Jesus, an angel announces to shepherds, "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord." This announcement isn't just about the arrival of some inoffensive religious figure who'll go about the country spouting platitudes about how to live a better life or how to create a better society. It is an announcement that the Kurios, the Lord - the Greek word that translates the Hebrew word Adonai in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word that stands in for the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, the Name of God - has just been born in a stable in the podunk town of Bethlehem. And that he is both Kurios and Soter (Savior) - two titles to which the same Augustus Caesar who ordered the census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in the first place laid claim. Jesus, not Caesar - in other words, not any political system nor political ideology - is Lord.

Carols services and church services on Christmas Day are dangerous to Caesar's regime and deeply offensive to a world who thinks either that belief doesn't really matter, or that religion is just about making you a good person, or that all beliefs lead to God. That angelic announcement, like Mary's Magnificat and Zechariah's Benedictus, says that belief does matter, that religion is precisely not about making you a good person, and that only one belief - or better, only one Lord and Savior - leads to and is himself God.

Again, I'm not surprised by the advert ban. The "secularists" get it, and they want nothing to do with threats to their fragile and dissolving notions of society.


Two Complementary Articles from First Things

The Impossibility of Secular Society.   The author argues that a religionless society is doomed to fail.  Organic human societies are intrinsically religious.  The New Right in Europe and in the Anglosphere understands this.  The only question for that movement is whether Europe's and the Anglosphere's true religion is paganism or Christianity.  Both camps agree, however, that Western liberalism must die if Europe is to live.

The Church as Culture.  Explaining in part why that religion must Christianity, and not paganism.


FIFNA on What Our Response Is To Be

Kingdom Thinking.

Our enemies in spiritual warfare are the world, the flesh and the devil. The Church teaches her children to keep up the attack on these three enemies, however they manifest themselves. The devil was certainly active in Paris on November 13, and heads of state must work out their escalation of the war against Islamic terrorism. Spiritually, we are to remain always on the offensive. There is no record in the Book of Acts of the apostles ever fighting defensive rear-guard actions. They were always seizing the initiative for Christ, to change a stubborn world for Him. After careful training, always strike hard. “Be strong and of good courage,” for God is with you (Joshua 1). God wants us in a ministry that drives us to our knees in prayer and fasting. Father George Rutler used to say that we are to “launch a revival so impossible that it is doomed to failure without God.”

We are to extend the Kingdom, and cure souls. Bring them in, and set them on the path to spiritual maturity in Christ. To do this we do not need to manufacture strategies. Our vocation is to produce saints first, then strategies. Saints are the ones who accept God´s challenge to grow spiritually and to grow in break-through thinking. Breakthrough thinking is to accomplish seemingly impossible goals through new and creative approaches, and to let go of entrenched patterns of thought, behavior and organizational structure that bind us to the mundane and keep us from reaching our goal, to present every man mature in Christ. Orthodox Christians are the branches connected with Jesus, the true Vine, with roots secured in heaven, drawing all resources from the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, risen and victorious. Orthodox Christians are therefore the strongest, the freest, and the most creative agents in breakthrough thinking. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is a perfect example of this. With her deep roots in Christ, thoroughly soaked in prayer and the sacraments and in the Tradition of holy Mother Church, she, penniless, did what no social worker could ever do among the poorest of the poor. She is regarded by multitudes today, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and agnostic, as the Mother of India. Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous BBC journalist, was converted to Christ by being with Mother Teresa for a film shoot. . . .

The Isis terrorists and their 7th century predecessors, the Muslims who took nearly the entire Mediterranean world by terror and bloodshed, are really the dupes of the barbarian gods, the demons, who demand human sacrifice and human blood. In stark contrast to this, the Son of God, the Father Almighty, gives His Body and sheds His Blood for us, for the life of the world. Bishop Charles Grafton, the Patron Saint of the Episcopal Church, counseled his priests in Wisconsin a hundred years ago: “Let us be inebriated with the Blood of the Holy Sacrifice, and on fire with the Holy Spirit.”

We mustn't every lose sight of what our role as spiritual warriors is to be.  But by the same token, in keeping with Bishop Hewett's observation about the role of the state and all the practical things that follow for us personally, we also must realistic - "wise as serpents" - about Islam.  This means, among other things, being realistic about the phenomenon of Muslim immigration to the West.  It is my observation that many if not most Anglicans are clueless.


"Welcome, Welcome Refugees!"

ISIS Claims Responsibility, Calling Paris Attacks ‘First of the Storm’

If any of my Anglican readers, whether clergy or laity, look upon this blog with a knitted brow because I say things like "The post-war liberal governments in Western Europe and the Anglosphere are not fit to govern and have accordingly lost political legitimacy" and "war is coming",  or because I post memes like the one below, well, perhaps now a change of mind on their part is in order.


"Welcome Refugees!"



"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. ... A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

~ John Stuart Mill



Evangelicals Need to Read Richard Hooker

Yes, they do.  So do some Anglicans.


Stunning Warning: (Civil) War Coming to Europe

I linked this article in the post immediately below.

OK, yeah, I know it is "World Nut Daily", but don't be so quick to dismiss the article, because the people quoted in it are eminently credible.

Besides, all of us -- even the Neo-Anglicans among us who would naturally tend to reject such arguments out of hand -- know in their heart of hearts that what these commentators say is likely true. See this video too.

Author, WND columnist and anti-Shariah campaigner Pamela Geller thinks it is already too late. Asked if she thought it would come to civil war in Europe, Geller told WND, “Yes, I do.”

She’s not alone.

“If the European political establishment maintains its stranglehold on power, it seems unavoidable that Islam will continue to build a political presence that will ultimately lead to Muslim uprisings and a European reaction outside of accepted political channels,” said G.M. Davis.

Davis, a Stanford Ph.D. and the author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World,” believes the only way the problem could be solved peacefully is through “an effective anti-Islamic political movement” taking shape in Europe “within a generation.”

The situation in Europe already seems to be spiraling out of control. Austrians are stocking up on weapons, and intelligence analysts warn of an imminent terrorist attack in the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile, European governments are cracking down on their own populations, even as tens of thousands of Muslim men are marching through the countryside like an invading army.

Davis argues if mainstream political forces are not able to quell the continuous influx of Muslim migrants into Europe, “grassroots organizations” will take up the “defense of Europe.

He told WND: “They would be acting in defiance of their respective governments, which could spark wholesale abandonment of those governments by their populations. We saw this in Communist Eastern Europe in 1989-91 with the key difference being that violence would be very much widespread [this time].”

As the article notes, analyst Diana West is skeptical that Europeans will muster the courage to rise to the occasion.  A few years ago, West published an article entitled "Connecting the Dots on Islam", in which she stated,

Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed.

West now seems skeptical of Europe's "will to resist", but if recent news is any indication it seems that huge blocks of "grassroots organizations" all over Europe, but especially in Eastern Europe, are springing up to meet the challenge.  I tend to think they will resist, violently if necessary, for what other option do they have?  And will Russia, North American Anglosphere states, Australia and New Zealand stand idly by while Western Europe becomes Islamic?  I hardly think so.  But in order for the latter three to develop the necessary resolve to oppose the Islamification of Europe, the regnant liberal-leftism there, as here in North America, will also have to be moved aside.  Ponder the implications of that. 

My dear Anglican Bishops, you know that what has been written here is true.  Your move.  My dear fellow Anglicans, let us accordingly be deeply in prayer for our bishops.


Peter Hitchens on Anglicanism and Traditionalist Conservatism

Peter Hitchens, who in my estimation is one of the best paleoconservative political writers on the scene (as judged by both the content of what he writes and the élan with which he writes it), is a convert from atheism and Trotskyism to a very traditional style of Anglicanism.  One of the things that drives me around the bend about so many purportedly conservative Christians, including a goodly number of Anglican bishops and priests, is that when one assesses what they say about political and cultural matters, they are spouting views that would have been thought of as reckless radicalism by previous generations of Anglican thinkers.  This statement from a recent article about Hitchens caused me to break forth in a few "Huzzahs!":

A conservative position flows directly and inevitably from a theist position. I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist - it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be.

But here's the rub: if you want to know what Hitchens means by "conservatism", read his articles.  He is no friend either of neoconservatism, multiculturalism, or any of the "isms" deemed within the pale of conservative theological and political thought by multitudes of Neo-Anglicans.  What's more, if all the generations of Anglicans up to the time of, say, C.S. Lewis could be brought back from the dead to opine on Mr. Hitchens, I'm confident that they would see in him someone who really understands the cultural and political ramifications of traditional Anglican faith, unlike so many of our Neo-Anglicans.

It would be one thing if this debate were simply an abstract one that is largely unrelated, or not related at all, to our existential condition here in the West.  But it is not.  It is now, literally, a life-or-death sort of debate, with reference to both our collective and individual existence, and it is now beyond the ability of conventional politics to fix it.  Civil war is at hand, and our bishops need to recover the steely traditionalist conservative Anglican resolve to admit that this is so and, consequently, to both radically alter their narrative and to prepare the flock for the task ahead.   The task will involve the proclamation of the Gospel, yes, but it will equally entail a call to steel for a fight.

"Ideas have consequences" said the famed traditionalist philosopher Richard Weaver.  Too many people both on the right and the left seem oblivious to the potential or real consequences of their "ideas", theologies or worldviews.  Modern Anglicans haven't escaped that malady, but the day is coming, and now is, when Anglicans will need to fully come to grips with the traditionalist implications of the old English faith. 



New to the Blogroll


"The Hate is Back."

'The hate is back' say German media as migrant crisis sparks the country's worst spate of political violence since the Nazi era

You know, you've got to smile at the liberal-left's increasingly futile attempt to control the Official Narrative. The insane immigration policies (etc.) of European liberal states, which have led there to a resurgence of the right, means that "hate is back" doncha know.

It's all so laughable when you consider that the lefties have shown themselves to be as just as hateful if not more so than the right, and that the history of leftist vs. rightist states shows that the left's hatred is far more intense, if gauged by the number of people they have murdered compared to that the right (especially when you factor in abortion).

In Europe right now, it's all a sure sign of their desperation and ultimate doom. They are unfit to govern, and an increasing number of Europeans know it.

In 2011, when the demented Anders Brevik went on a killing spree over what he perceived to be the Norweigan sellout to Islam, European traditionalists scrambled to distance themselves from his actions.  However bad things may be, you don't just go out and murder a bunch of benighted politicians and kids, they rightly argued.  But there is a point to be addressed here they said, and one "Shrewsbury", commenting on the traditionalist Lawrence Auster's blog,  made that point eloquently:

Shrewsbury is giving no thought to the political fall-out from the Breivik atrocity, for three reasons, in ascending order of importance:

3. If the liberals want to turn a hundred horrible murders into just more grist for the mill of their squalid politics, he is willing to let them have it.

2. He does not give a rat’s hindquarters what liberals (that is, neo-Leninists) think or say or do about anything. At this point in the dialectic, no dialogue is possible with them. They live in their own universe of lies and depravity.

1. The deeper meaning of this event goes far beyond giving the haircuts on the television news a new rhetorical weapon. It means multiculturalism and mass immigration are now pushing some white people into the same nihilistic psychological space as Muslims, left with nothing but an overwhelming urge to destroy. If the liberals had the wit to understand this, they would be profoundly alarmed. The difference of course is that the Muslim culture is the source of its own despair, while for the European the cause of despair is the forcible ruin and elimination of his culture by others—the left, the Muslims. This means that the European urge to destroy can be slaked by allowing the European to be European, while the Muslim’s urge to destroy can never be slaked, because, to achieve any peace, he must become something other than Muslim.

But at the moment this makes no difference—you have two urges to destroy, with the utterly rotten edifice of liberalism in the middle. And this is what matters, not what Rachel Maddow is babbling tomorrow. We may even find that the liberals’ expressions of hate toward the right become actually less intemperate after this, as they begin to sense the stirrings of the monster which they have done so much to awake, and, having cried wolf a thousand times, now find themselves confronted by a dragon; and begin to realize that all their silly ranting about how awful the Right is will be of no use if they are to be confronted by a Right which really is awful.

This didn’t have to happen, the left didn’t have work so long and so frenziedly to try to destroy us, and everything we are, and everything we have, but they did, so it will happen. It is sickening and it is tragic.

I would highlight Shrewsbury's point that "(a)t this point in the dialectic, no dialogue is possible with (the European liberal-leftists). They live in their own universe of lies and depravity."

Which means that their states no longer enjoy political legitimacy.  Certain things follow from this.

For us Anglicans, I would argue that the time has come to put away this kind of nonsense, and embrace the realism we will all need to avoid civil war in Europe and perhaps here in the Anglosphere.

Lastly, regarding "'hate",  I will conclude with this observation of G.K. Chesterton:

“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”

What is behind us is Christian civilization.  As Bill Bennett once put it, we defend that civilization "because it is good, and it is ours."


The Irrationality and Unmanliness of Christian Pacifism

On display here.  I gave up after posting references to Catholic teaching, to the work of C.S. Lewis and Richard Niebuhr, and highlighting the illogic of their exegesis.  Their blinders are apparently on for good.


Three Articles for the "Church v. Academy" Category


The Church and Men

"Men are Miracle-Gro for a church. Put men in a church and it will grow. The men don't even have to be that committed. Mainline churches in postwar America scooped up religiously adrift me--and grew like mad as a result. But during the 1970s, the mainline turned its back on men (and all things masculine). Almost immediately mainline churches began deflating like leaky balloons--losing members and influence." - Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow, p 134